FAA variant of Vickers Wellesley

[Admiral Beez]

Okay, now we're really going to trigger our resident contrarians. Come out ye all, don't be shy. It's early 1937, some overfunded, bored or insane procurement mgr at the Air Ministry asks Vickers to design a carrier-capable variant of the Vickers Wellesley. Requirements include the ability to fit down the 45 by 22 feet (13.7 by 6.7 m) lifts and 16 feet (4.9 m) tall hangar of the new Illustrious class carriers (begun in April 1937), able to carry a torpedo or 2,000 lbs of bombs, able to take off (without catapult, from mid aft) and land fully loaded with WOD of 25 knots. Must also be catapult capable.

Vickers will take the government money, so they get to work on a prototype. What do we see the result looking like? Are the underwing pods maintained? Will these pods when loaded and the undercarriage hold up to arrested landings and catapult launches? If the pods are deleted, presumably to allow the wings to fold, how are the bombs attached to the geodesic structure? Can the geodesic wings fold? Can the Bristol Pegasus manage to get this huge beast airborne?

 

[Shortround6]

By late 1937 Vickers, with the air of two renegade Japanese Origami Masters, in a top secret program had devised a way to fold the Wellesley to the dimensions needed to get it down the carrier lift and into the 16ft high hanger. Several prototypes were made but extensive testing in the fall of 1938 and into the spring of 1939 found that unless two purple belt Origami practitioners (or one brown belt and one blue belt in pinch) were included in the deck handling crew it took a minimum of 3hrs 15 minutes to strike one aircraft below deck from arresting hook to placement on the hanger deck clear of the lift. Vickers and the Admiralty were forced to admit defeat and all involved were sworn to secrecy under the official secrets act for 50 plus years. The Prototypes and all drawings were dumped into deep water (over 200 meters) just west of Ireland.

 

[Admiral Beez]

By late 1937 Vickers, with the air of two renegade Japanese Origami Masters, in a top secret program had devised a way to fold the Wellesley to the dimensions needed to get it down the carrier lift and into the 16ft high hanger.

When I see the Barracuda folded I'm reminded of origami. Is there any more convoluted folding in the WW2 era of carrier aircraft? Maybe the Aichi M6A? Our Wellesley will be a competitor.

Perhaps the Wellesley would have an earlier version of the Gannet's double fold.

 

[ThomasP]

IIRC the Wellesley was found suitable for torpedo bombing, although I do not think it was ever used as such?

 

[Admiral Beez]

The view forward seems okay for carrier landing.

A good starting point for the wing fold. But will this be 22ft wide?

Looks like here they're testing a new engine?

 

[Admiral Beez]

Some interested content, including loading the bomb pods.

 

[Shortround6]

The photo of the different cowl may be the one used on the record setting flight.

It was still a Pegasus engine.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

That wingspan is a tough hill to fight over. I'll go with less range, and a smaller airframe able to fit inside this, for a carrier-borne TB:

 

[Admiral Beez]

That wingspan is a tough hill to fight over. I'll go with less range, and a smaller airframe able to fit inside this, for a carrier-borne TB:

View attachment 612710

I agree, that wingspan is going to be a huge barrier. At 74.5 ft wide, our naval Wellesley will be I believe the widest span carrier aircraft until the 80 ft wide Grumman E-2 Hawkeye. Mind you, the 73 ft wide Grumman S-2 Tracker was close, and a popular choice of navies operating the small Colossus and Majestic class, utilizing the unique asymmetric fold process where one wing folds in front of the other. If a Tracker can fit, so can our Wellesley.

Grumman Tracker algemeen 1

Of course we mustn't forget the Lockheed U-2 Project Whale Tale: the story of how the U-2 became an embarked reconnaissance aircraft.

 

[Glider]

I was waiting for someone to comment on the wingspan. The Grey Funnel line would have had a lot of fun trying to get a quart into a pint pot.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I agree, that wingspan is going to be a huge barrier. At 74.5 ft wide, our naval Wellesley will be I believe the widest span carrier aircraft until the 80 ft wide Grumman E-2 Hawkeye. Mind you, the 73 ft wide Grumman S-2 Tracker was close, and a popular choice of navies operating the small Colossus and Majestic class, utilizing the unique asymmetric fold process where one wing folds in front of the other. If a Tracker can fit, so can our Wellesley.

View attachment 612749
Grumman Tracker algemeen 1

Of course we mustn't forget the Lockheed U-2 Project Whale Tale: the story of how the U-2 became an embarked reconnaissance aircraft.

I had no idea the Tracker folded like that, thanks for a learning moment.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I had no idea the Tracker folded like that, thanks for a learning moment.

Me neither until I starting wondering how the postwar wide span aircraft managed to fit onto carriers even smaller than the Illustrious class.

Here's a cool vid of the Tracker unfolding. Of course our Wellesley won't have the benefit of hydraulics, but this does show a possible wing fold design that can avoid the origami of the Barracuda or Gannet. Though I'm not sure how the deckhands can get the super wide wing up and over manually, especially on a gusty deck in the North Sea.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Me neither until I starting wondering how the postwar wide span aircraft managed to hit onto carriers even smaller than the Illustrious class.

Here's a cool vid of the Tracker unfolding. Of course our Wellesley won't have the benefit of hydraulics, but this does show a possible wing fold design that can avoid the origami of the Barracuda or Gannet. Though I'm not sure how the deckhands can get the super wide wing up and over manually, especially on a gusty deck in the North Sea.

Whatever you think about his airplanes, Roy Grumman was pretty creative about folding them down.

 

[buffnut453]

IIRC the Wellesley was found suitable for torpedo bombing, although I do not think it was ever used as such?
View attachment 612698

The Wellesley dropped torpedoes in test flights but not on operations. Interestingly, the aircraft in the image is one of the Wellesleys converted with the long greenhouse canopy instead of the split pilots/gunners canopies as per the original design.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The Wellesley dropped torpedoes in test flights but not on operations. Interestingly, the aircraft in the image is one of the Wellesleys converted with the long greenhouse canopy instead of the split pilots/gunners canopies as per the original design.

I wonder if that greenhouse canopy resulted in removal of the upper fuselage between the original two canopies. Seems it would cause a weak point in the geodesic structure.

I'm sure this chap would welcome the extra headroom.

 

[buffnut453]

I've yet to find a really good close-up pic of the greenhouse canopy installation. I've struggled for some time to fathom why they made the change...but only on a limited number of airframes. The best I can come up with is that it afforded better lookout options for the rear crew.

I suspect the geodesic fuselage construction wasn't modified by the canopy change because, as you point out, it would likely have weakened the overall structure. However, the addition of the canopy would mean that the fabric covering from the top of the fuselage could be removed, hence providing greater illumination into the rear fuselage and a better view outside.

The 2 trapezoidal windows in the fuselage had pintle mounts for machine guns, and so having the ability to keep an enemy aircraft in view as it overflies your Wellesley would seem to be a useful capability. That said, the extra canopy is quite substantial if that's the only reason for the mod.

One day, I may find the time to dig into the Wellesley files at the UKNA and see if there are any schematics or descriptions of the modification. However, that won't be for some considerable time, methinks.

 

[fastmongrel]

Be easier to fit a B17 onboard a MAC ship. You don't fold the wings you simply build a sliding sun roof big enough to drop a big aircraft straight in.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I've yet to find a really good close-up pic of the greenhouse canopy installation.

Here's an artist's interpretation. Note how It's not full length cockpit to aft, but just gives the man in the middle a view and perhaps some headroom.

 

[ClayO]

Here's an interesting YouTube on the Wellesley, a plane that I was almost completely unaware of - I definitely didn't know about its critical role in East Africa and the capture of the Enigma code books.

 

[nuuumannn]

Okay, now we're really going to trigger our resident contrarians.

Eek, seriously, Admiral? Are we trying to make the pre-WW2 Fleet Air Arm even worse than what it actually was? Putting a Wellesley on a carrier would offer the already capability denuded FAA a near to useless aeroplane with even poorer performance than the Blackburn Skua that was less useful and took up too much precious space because of its size. Adding the mods and structural strengthening to make it a carrier type would weigh it down, thus reducing its by late 1930s/early 1940s dismal performance further.

If you really want the FAA to have Wellesleys, take away the bombing gear, put high altitude cameras in it, blow the Pegasus and make it a (land based) long range high altitude strategic recon platform, or make it a long range maritime patrol/sub hunter, but keep it away from a carrier deck.

If you want a better carrier strike aircraft than the Skua, use the Hawker Henley, faster and smaller than the Skua, the Henley at least shared DNA with a legit fighter.

How was that, contrary enough?